Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Donut Shop
How do you guys feel about gun companys not selling to LEO's?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="musclefan21" data-source="post: 12803685" data-attributes="member: 53499"><p>I agree with that ruling. If police were required to protect people while off duty/on duty, PDs would go bankrupt and people would get rich by suing them everytime. It is very well known that police cant be everywhere, so it is unrealistic to require police to protect while off duty or on duty. Because things happen and they happen very quick. That ruling is solely because it would be unrealistic to expect guaranteed protection 24/7 from the police. However, Police while on duty will respond to calls, and will act to protect the citizens from the harms way at all times. Sometimes they are successful, sometimes they are not, but they attempt to protect at all times. It is their job to protect and serve. Ruling is there because as i said it is unrealistic for police to protect everyone at all times. preventing departments to get sued everyday. That's all.</p><p></p><p>P.S. Officers are Officers 24/7. They have full police powers off duty. So, when an Off duty officer act to protect someone, he is acting as an officer, not a civilian. Most prefer to be a good witness in most cases though. I will say this again though, community expects an officer to act to a crime while off duty, but they dont expect a civilian to act.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="musclefan21, post: 12803685, member: 53499"] I agree with that ruling. If police were required to protect people while off duty/on duty, PDs would go bankrupt and people would get rich by suing them everytime. It is very well known that police cant be everywhere, so it is unrealistic to require police to protect while off duty or on duty. Because things happen and they happen very quick. That ruling is solely because it would be unrealistic to expect guaranteed protection 24/7 from the police. However, Police while on duty will respond to calls, and will act to protect the citizens from the harms way at all times. Sometimes they are successful, sometimes they are not, but they attempt to protect at all times. It is their job to protect and serve. Ruling is there because as i said it is unrealistic for police to protect everyone at all times. preventing departments to get sued everyday. That's all. P.S. Officers are Officers 24/7. They have full police powers off duty. So, when an Off duty officer act to protect someone, he is acting as an officer, not a civilian. Most prefer to be a good witness in most cases though. I will say this again though, community expects an officer to act to a crime while off duty, but they dont expect a civilian to act. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Donut Shop
How do you guys feel about gun companys not selling to LEO's?
Top